Aside from faulty vision, I do not think we see things blurred by movement. Something moving through a fixed focal point that happens to be recorded as a photo is blurry, but we don't see things that way. We construct the whole scene, and what we see we follow, reconstructing multiple images. The blur we think is merely the lazy memory of what we perceive, like that you mention re your hearing. WC
--- On Mon, 12/8/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Photography and the artworld > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 1:23 PM > On Dec 8, 2008, at 12:07 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > This is the old trick of portrait painting, too, to > keep the > > features a bit vague to allow the viewer to see what > is desired > > (good or bad). > > Once again, I'd like to bring up the fact that in > normal, everyday > experience, we perceive objects and events in flux, not > static and > stationary. We see objects and people blurred by movement, > both ours > and theirs, and we construct a perception that we accept as > > sufficiently sharp and "focused" as we need. Only > the camera can give > us the famous person's face with the lips perpetually > twisted in an > idiotic sneer, or with one eye closed, or the hair sticking > straight > up from the scalp. Only the camera can give us the > depth-of-field blur > (which is exploited in movies when the camera assistant, > called the > focus-puller, shifts the sharp focus from a foreground > speaker to a > rear-ground speaker as the dialogue switches from one to > the other). > In everyday experienced, we rarely notice the > depth-of-field > phenomenon because we use our intent to look at the near or > far object > to switch the focus of our vision; in film, the shifting of > the camera > focus leads the viewer's change in interest. (The only > time we can be > aware of this blurring, I think, is when we play the parlor > trick of > putting our finger near our nose and looking at it with > each eye so > that we see the shifting of the background--i.e., a > parallax--but > which must be out of focus because of how near our finger > is to our > eyes.) > > As I said, in our daily experience, we perceive everything > with > *sufficient* sharpness to satisfy most purposes. I've > been near- > sighted since the 6th grade, so I am aware of the blurring > of focus. > Also, I often don't hear people's speech clearly > (which I attribute to > lazy listening, because my hearing is within normal range). > I jokingly > say, "I mumble when I listen." > > The point: Art helps us see the world by means of its > fictitiousness. > An Italian artist paints a blurry sfumato to suggest > atmospheric > perspective while a Dutch artist paints a painstakingly > sharp still > life of game, fowl, and fruits. Another Italian paints a > small dog on > a leash with blurred front and rear legs, showing them in > rapid > motion. All are visual fictions of one kind or other, > because they > freeze and capture a fleeting instant of a blurred event > which we > perceive clearly. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
